Rules of Evid.
Name the rule implicated prior to trial with respect to character evidence
608 Truthfulness or Untruthfulness
Richards v. Mississippi BBQ must provide an example relevant to the case
MRE 703 does not permit experts to testify or present a chart in a manner that simply summarizes inadmissible hearsay without first relating that hearsay to some specialized knowledge on the expert’s part. The Court must distinguish experts relying on otherwise inadmissible hearsay to form scientific conclusions from conduits who merely repeat what they are told. The testimony of the former is admissible; that of the latter is not. At the same time, statements that would otherwise be admissible are not inadmissible simply because they are offered by or through an expert witness.
Stipulation 34
Through no fault of either party, the following witness(es) shall be deemed to be unavailable for purposes of MRE 804:
Chambers v. By the Book Publishing, Ltd.
The hearsay rule is only implicated where an out-of-court statement is being used for the truth of the matter asserted. If it only matters whether the out-of-court statement was made (not whether it was true), then the hearsay rule is not implicated.
Rule 703
An expert may base an opinion on facts or data in the case that the expert has been made aware of or personally observed. If experts in the particular field would reasonably rely on those kinds of facts or data in forming an opinion on the subject, they need not be admissible for the opinion to be admitted. But if the facts or data would otherwise be inadmissible, the proponent of the opinion may disclose them to the jury only if their probative value in helping the jury evaluate the opinion substantially outweighs their prejudicial effect.
Rule 702
A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if: (a) the expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue; (b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data; (c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and (d) the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case.
Ginger v. Heisman must provide an example relevant to the case
Emails or text messages are properly authenticated when the proponent has produced evidence, either direct or circumstantial, that would allow a reasonable jury to determine the author of the message. The fact that an email, text message, or other electronic communication is listed as coming from an address or number that is either known or purports to belong to a particular person is sufficient to lay foundation that the communication was sent by the person in order to determine its admissibility, at least absent particularized reasons to believe that the communication may have been sent by someone else.
Stipulation 14
If Kirby Doolittle is not testifying, Exhibits 29a-c are pre-admitted. If pre-admitted, Exhibits 29a-c may be used (or referred to) during opening statements.
Borealis Industries v. Ellen Nora Hobbs
Plaintiff sued defendant for computer fraud, claiming that she initiated a malware attack that ultimately resulted in the loss of millions of dollars. At trial, defendant argued that she was not liable because someone else conducted the malware attack. Plaintiff argues that defendant should have been precluded from raising an alternative suspect argument because defendant did not plead any affirmative defenses. Held: Defendant does not need to plead an affirmative defense to argue an alternative suspect theory. Defenses and affirmative defenses are different. Whereas affirmative defenses involve admitting the acts in question but claiming a legal justification for those acts, pure defenses deny committing the acts entirely. An alternative suspect theory is a pure defense, not an affirmative defense. As a consequence, defendant is free to argue an alternative suspect theory when disputing a claim without needing to raise an affirmative defense.
Provide the rule number and explanation for the most common objections on redirect and recross
611b and 611c Scope and Leading
Provide the first six (6) hearsay exceptions and a description for each
803(1) Present Sense Impression
803(2) Excited Utterance
803(3) Then Existing Mental Physical or Emotional Condition
803(4) Statements made for Medical Diagnosis or Treatment
803(5) Recorded Recollection
803(6) Records of Regularly conducted activity
Tarot Readers Association of Midlands v. Merrell Dow
In assessing reliability under MRE 702(c), judges should consider whether the theory or technique has been or can be tested, whether it has been subjected to peer review and publication, whether it has a known error rate, or whether it has gained widespread acceptance within the field. These factors, while relevant, are not necessarily dispositive. For example, lack of publication does not automatically foreclose admission; sometimes well-grounded but innovative theories will not have been published. There is no definitive checklist. Judges must make such assessments based on the totality of the circumstances.
Stipulation 13
If Dr. Hillary Edmund is not testifying, Exhibit 19b is pre-admitted, and both sides agree that all information in Exhibit 19b is true and accurate, including that Avery Bancroft died of intentional poisoning by rodenticide. If pre-admitted, Exhibit 19b may be used (or referred to) during opening statements. Further, Exhibit 41 is the same type and brand of rodenticide as mentioned in Exhibit 19b.
Kane Software Co. v. Mars Investigations
Midlands does not permit parties to use their experts as weapons in a trial by ambush or unfair surprise. Expert reports that are exchanged prior to trial must contain a complete statement of all opinions the expert will testify to and the basis and reasons for them, the facts or data considered by the expert in forming their opinions, and the expert’s qualifications. Experts are strictly prohibited from testifying on direct and redirect examination about any opinions or conclusions not stated in their report, and such testimony must be excluded upon a timely objection from opposing counsel. For example, an expert may not testify on direct or redirect examination that they formed a conclusion based on evidence that came out during trial that the expert did not previously review. However, if an expert is asked during cross examination about matters not contained in their report, the expert may freely answer the question as long as the answer is responsive.
When an objection is made under Kane Software, the trial court should ask the party offering the expert testimony to refer the trial court to where the proposed testimony is contained or otherwise referenced in the expert’s disclosure to ensure that the record is clear.
Provide the Rule Number for Effect on the Listener
There isn't any because it is a non-hearsay purpose :)
Name the rule relied upon by Jeffries v. Polk County Police Department and Moore v. Parker-Noblitt
Rule 701
Garmoe v. Evans
MRE 803(6) covers a wide range of records and documents. These can include receipts, emails, memos, and any other such records so long it qualifies as a regularly conducted activity. The key inquiry is whether such records are indeed a regularly conducted activity of the business or organization. For example, if a business or organization regularly creates memos (whether written or via voice), such memos fall under MRE 803(6) (assuming all elements are established).
Stipulation 9
All objections have been waived to Exhibit 31, and both parties agree that no additional foundation is necessary for admission. To clarify, the parties have not stipulated who made the purchases shown in Exhibit 31.
Davis v. Adams
Trial judges must ensure that any scientific testimony or evidence admitted is not only relevant but reliable. In determining reliability, judges should consider only the methods employed and the data relied upon, not the conclusions themselves. The proponent of the evidence has the burden of proving each section of MRE 702 by a preponderance of the evidence.
Describe the principle of additional relevance and provide a rule number
Additional relevance is the conditional admittance of evidence or testimony wherein the relevance or requisite foundation for the testimony will be provided later. Rule 104
Assuming the testimony is admissible provide the 2 ways to properly provide character evidence
405 Methods of Proving Character by Reputation or Opinion, or by Specific Instances of conduct.
608 Truthfulness or Untruthfulness the same exceptions apply
Kissner v. Polk Hospital
Stipulations are pretrial agreements between the parties that certain matters cannot be disputed at trial. Stipulations may be procedural (i.e., pre-numbering of exhibits) or substantive (i.e., agreement to a particular fact in the case). For example, if a stipulation states that a light was green, neither party may proffer or offer witness testimony asserting that the light was red. However, parties are only bound to the text of the stipulation. As another example, if parties stipulate to the pre-admission of an exhibit and nothing else, although the exhibit is in evidence (and cannot be excluded by objection), the parties have not stipulated that the content of the exhibit is correct, and either party may (but is not required to) contest the accuracy of the content of the pre-admitted exhibit. Conversely, if the parties stipulate that all information in an exhibit is true and accurate, neither party may contest the content of said exhibit.
Stipulation 7
All hearsay objections have been waived to Exhibits 22, 23, 24, and 35. Nothing in this stipulation speaks to the authenticity of those exhibits.
Farrant v. Westaway
Identification is a permissible non-hearsay purpose for a statement. Where a statement is not being used for the truth of the matter asserted but is instead being used to identify a particular object, the statement is being used for identification. For example, if a license plate is being used to identify a particular car, the statement on the license plate is admissible as non-hearsay.
Seferian v. Morales discusses one particular exception to hearsay and why it is not applicable to a civil proceeding. What is the rule?
Rule 801 (d)(2)(E) Co-Conspirator Statements